No better time

Editorial

The plan for Har Homa is under attack on many fronts. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat claims it jeopardizes his vision of an independent Palestinian state. Other Arab leaders threaten that the plan is, in the words of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, a "potential source of tension and violence." U.S. President Clinton says that construction at this time would "prejudge" the final-status phase of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the status of Jerusalem.

Polls show that some Israelis oppose construction; others, fearing renewed violence, want it postponed. A substantial minority want construction to begin now, a position espoused by many American Jewish leaders.

Have yesterday's visionaries become today's intransigents? In the '90s world, is the timing of Har Homa politically incorrect? Would postponement hasten or delay successful culmination of the peace process?

The peace process, like the historical political relationship between the Israelis and Arabs, is peppered with verbal fireworks and unbearable bloodshed. To postpone construction of Har Homa would be to play directly into the hands of enemies of peace, those for whom upheaval and violence are a useful status quo. Yet while they disagree about every rule of the road, people of good will on both sides have traveled far on the difficult road to peace.

If the time is right for Israel to complete construction of its capital, it should do so. The Palestinians, having just wrested Hebron from Israel through protracted and painful negotiations, surely are learning the value of talk and compromise. While they may object loudly to Har Homa, as Israelis did to Hebron, it is time for them to learn that what goes around, comes around.